[MD] Why are things called patterns?

[118]

Hi Andre,
Thanks for the support.  For who indeed is thick and unbending in their static representation.  We get verses from the book as if they were religious dogma.  This not where Pirsig wanted this to go.  This is why he cautioned against the degeneration of a metaphysics into the written word.  He did so with intellectual rhetoric.  I am sure you would agree with me here too.  If not, please enlighten me if you are not too tired to do so.  Yes, even use your intellect unless you find such a thing demeaning.  I fully understand if you do not want to get involved.  Contemplation is not for everyone, and sometimes frustrating unless one has a cause to believe in.

I have sat on the sidelines for over 30 years.  Please skip my well intentioned posts if they annoy you.  I wish only to discuss this with those willing to bring in the positive.

Thanks again,

Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
Mark

On Mar 11, 2012, at 3:05 AM, Andre <andrebroersen at gmail.com> wrote:

> Horse:
> Taking silence as agreement is never a good idea.
> 
> Andre:
> Hear hear. My response to Mark when asked if there was anything wrong with his logic was that I wouldn't know where to start (in pointing them all out and addressing them) and that I didn't have the energy or inclination to pursue this. I mean, who is thick here?
> 
> Mark:
> Yes, I agree, hear hear.  These twittering tweets are annoying.  Let us stick to MoQ.  As you know, I presented my interpretations which have been accepted since nobody seems to think otherwise.  Let us
> stick to that.
> 
> Andre(exasperated):
> Sigh.
> 
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html